What if the European conquistadors had purely benevolent motives?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that aztec gods dont exist. True, they believed in it, but other societies didnt really act in the name of god, they just covered through religion more real and rational concerns (look at crusades, or inquisition, for example).
The reason of flower wars was by far more "abstract religion" than the crusades.
So the inquisition was purely rational, while the flower wars weren't?

Both were carried out in the name of gods (or a god) who may or may not exist. The inquisitions were also used to bring stability. The flower wars were also used to train the military and as a form of social mobility. Further, flower wars were 'voluntarily', while the inquisition wasn't.

Is 'trying to bring stability in a forceful way' (which obviously didn't work; see the Dutch Revolt) better than ('voluntarily') 'training the military' (worked) and 'a form of social mobility' (also worked)?
 

Esopo

Banned
So the inquisition was purely rational, while the flower wars weren't?

Both were carried out in the name of gods (or a god) who may or may not exist. The inquisitions were also used to bring stability. The flower wars were also used to train the military and as a form of social mobility. Further, flower wars were 'voluntarily', while the inquisition wasn't.

Is 'trying to bring stability in a forceful way' (which obviously didn't work; see the Dutch Revolt) better than ('voluntarily') 'training the military' (worked) and 'a form of social mobility' (also worked)?

If flower wars were consciously used as an instrument to train the army (didnt actual wars exist? why to use such a odd thing like the flower wars?), to ensure aztec superiority (how are supposed flower wars to do that instead of real wars? it would be like letting olympics decide who is in the g8) and ensure social mobility (how? i still didnt understand that) you would be surely right.
Inquisition wasnt done in order to please god. It was basically a political tool, which had some weak mask of religiosity. The flower wars, if im not mistaken, were far more a religious thing than a political or practical one.

The voluntary thing, as i have explained, is a negative thing to me btw.
 
All I got to add to this is the human sacrifices being committed were so psychotically overblown it's ASB that people still believe in them.
 
All I got to add to this is the human sacrifices being committed were so psychotically overblown it's ASB that people still believe in them.
It's rather bizarre that people would believe the accounts of the same priests who were accusing Jews of performing classic Aztec-style heart removal sacrifice on children in 1491. But then again people still believe Nazi propaganda about Poland. Sensationalism will always trump logic and truth. :(
 
Back to the original topic,

I'm surprised at how many people think that if the conquistadors came as explorers, the results would have been much different. Since more than 95% of the deaths of native Americans were from disease, I contend that there wouldn't have been much difference.
 
Back to the original topic,

I'm surprised at how many people think that if the conquistadors came as explorers, the results would have been much different. Since more than 95% of the deaths of native Americans were from disease, I contend that there wouldn't have been much difference.

I very much think there'd have been a difference, because not actively conquering the people being wiped out by disease will almost certainly mean that much of the American world will have native population resurgences from populations where the diseases have become endemic and immunity has been built up over time.
 
I very much think there'd have been a difference, because not actively conquering the people being wiped out by disease will almost certainly mean that much of the American world will have native population resurgences from populations where the diseases have become endemic and immunity has been built up over time.


I fail to see how "not conquering" NA population would have allowed a "resurgence" of population. Almost all of the deaths were from diseases not European violence. It is true the immunity does build up over time. But, lack of conquering would not have helped that along.
 
I fail to see how "not conquering" NA population would have allowed a "resurgence" of population. Almost all of the deaths were from diseases not European violence. It is true the immunity does build up over time. But, lack of conquering would not have helped that along.

Because as I just said, that's not the issue with the European conquest. The issue is that the land being settled by Europeans made a native resettlement impossible. If European colonization is significantly slowed then you are looking at the likelihood of an Indian resurgence.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top